9~10岁儿童和成人的一致性序列效应

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00914

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

一致性序列效应是指个体根据前一情境中的冲突信息, 灵活适应当前环境的能力。研究选取9~10岁的儿童和18~25岁的成人为被试, 采用色-词Stroop任务和Stroop与Flanker刺激混合的任务, 在控制重复启动的影响后, 考察一致性序列效应在不同任务中的年龄差异。结果发现, 在不同的任务中, 儿童和成人均表现出显著的一致性序列效应, 且一致性序列效应的大小不存在显著差异。研究结果表明, 冲突适应过程涉及更高级的加工过程, 9~10岁的儿童已具备类似成人的、更一般化的冲突适应能力。

关键词: 认知适应, 一致性序列效应, 色-词Stroop任务, Flanker任务

Abstract:

Sequential congruency effects (CSEs) or conflict adaptation effects refer to the ability to flexibly and rapidly adapt interference control. The Gratton effect, as demonstrated using a standard Stroop or flanker task, can be explained in at least three ways. The first explanation is the conflict-monitoring account. A second theory is the repetition-expectancy account. A third explanation rests on the notion of low-level repetition effects and has been incorporated in the feature-integration or feature-priming account. Concerning age differences in CSEs, the great majority of studies examined adult populations. The relatively few studies that (also) examined children and adolescents, using one of the standard interference control tasks. Previous studies examining age differences in cognitive control adaptations, as reflected in congruency sequence effects (CSEs) in tasks inducing stimulus or response conflict, did not consistently control for priming confounds. Hence, answering the question whether or not children have an equal ability and pattern of cognitive control adaptations, relative to adults, still requires more research.

The participants were 33 adults with a mean age of 20.6 years and 34 children with a mean age of 9.5 years. The experiment consists of two tasks: Task 1 is a Stroop task; Task 2 consisted of a mix of trials from the Stroop and flanker tasks. The stimuli used for the Stroop task (Task 1) consisted of the Hanzi representing the word “RED” printed in red (congruent trial) or green (incongruent trial), and the Hanzi representing the word “GREEN”, also printed in red (incongruent trial) or green (congruent trial). These stimuli were also used in Task 2, which also incorporated a flanker task. The stimuli of the flanker task were five arrows that all pointed to the right or left (congruent trials), or with the middle arrow pointing in one direction and the surrounding arrows in the other (incongruent trials). The experiment was performed on two consecutive days. On the first day, participants performed the Stroop task (Task 1), the next day participants performed the Task 2. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the RTs and accuracy in the two tasks.

For Task 1, of primary interest, the Trial n-1 congruency × Trial n congruency interaction was significant. Follow-up analyses revealed that the congruency effect was significant after congruent trials (cC vs. cI trials). The congruency effect was also significant after incongruent trials (iC vs. iI trials). Responding on cC trials was faster than on iC trials and responding on cI trials was slower than on iI trials, reflecting a clear CSEs. The two groups did not differ in the size of the conflict adaptation effect. The accuracy data, also suggest a clear reduction of the congruency effect in both age groups, which seemed to be mainly caused by more accurate responding on iI relative to cI trials. For Task 2, the Trial n-1 congruency × Trial n congruency interaction revealed that, although the congruency effect was significant both after congruent (cC vs. cI), and incongruent trials (iC vs. iI), cC trial pairs were associated with faster responses compared to iC trial pairs. However, RTs on iI trials did not differ from those on cI trials. There was no difference between the groups in mean CSE magnitude for both the Stroop→Flanker and Flanker→Stroop transition trials. The accuracy data suggest a similar pattern.

The strong resemblance between CSEs observed for 9~10-year-old children and adult participants under both single- and two-task conditions adds to the behavioral evidence of cognitive control adaptation capacities in children of this age, which seem to reach adult-like levels despite a relative immaturity of brain areas that subserve those capacities in adults. Hence, the observed CSE reflected higher-order, cognitive adaptation rather than the lower-level effects potentially induced by response repetition.

Key words: cognitive adaptation, congruency sequence effect, colour-word Stroop task, Flanker task

中图分类号:

B842
B844

赵鑫, 贾丽娜, 周爱保. (2019). 9~10岁儿童和成人的一致性序列效应. 心理学报, 51(8), 914-923.

ZHAO Xin, JIA Lina, ZHOU Aibao. (2019). Congruency sequence effects in 9~10-year-old children and young adults. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(8), 914-923.

图/表 4

参考文献 40

[1]	Adleman N. E., Menon V., Blasey C. M., White C. D., Warsofsky I. S., Glover G. H., & Reiss A. L . ( 2002). A Developmental fMRI Study of the Stroop Color-Word Task. NeuroImage, 16(1), 61-75.
[2]	Ambrosi S., Lemaire P., & Blaye A . ( 2016). Do young children modulate their cognitive control? Sequential congruency effects across three conflict tasks in 5-to-6 year olds. Experimental Psychology , 63(2), 117-126.
[3]	Benikos N., Johnstone S. J., & Roodenrys S. J . ( 2013). Varying task difficulty in the Go/Nogo task: The effects of inhibitory control, arousal, and perceived effort on ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 87(3), 262-272.
[4]	Botvinick M. M., Braver T. S., Barch D. M., Carter C. S., & Cohen J. D . ( 2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624-652.
[5]	Braem S., Abrahamse E. L., Duthoo W., & Notebaert W . ( 2014). What determines the specificity of conflict adaptation? A review, critical analysis and proposed synthesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1134.
[6]	Brocki K.C., & Bohlin G. , ( 2004). Executive functions in children aged 6 to 13: A dimensional and developmental study. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26(2), 571-593.
[7]	Cao J., Wang S. H., Ren Y. L., Zhang Y. L., Cai J., Tu W. J., … Xia Y . ( 2013). Interference control in 6-11 year-old children with and without ADHD: Behavioral and ERP study. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 31(5), 342-349.
[8]	Cragg L., . ( 2016). The development of stimulus and response interference control in midchildhood. Developmental Psychology, 52(2), 242-252.
[9]	Diamond A., . ( 2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135-168.
[10]	Duthoo W., Abrahamse E. L., Braem S., Boehler C. N., & Notebaert W . ( 2014 b). The heterogeneous world of congruency sequence effects: An update. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1001.
[11]	Egner T., & Hirsch J. , ( 2005). The neural correlates and functional integration of cognitive control in a Stroop task. NeuroImage, 24(2), 539-547.
[12]	Erb C. D., Moher J., Song J.-H., & Sobel D. M . ( 2018). Reach tracking reveals dissociable processes underlying inhibitory control in 5- to 10-year-olds and adults. Developmental Science, 21:e12523.
[13]	Eriksen A., &Eriksen C.W. . ( 1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 64(1), 143-149.
[14]	Freitas A. L., Bahar M., Yang S., & Banai R . ( 2007). Contextual adjustments in cognitive control across tasks. Psychological Science 18(12), 1040-1043.
[15]	Funes M. J., Lupiáñez J., & Humphreys G . ( 2010). Analyzing the generality of conflict adaptation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(1), 147-161.
[16]	Goldfarb L., Aisenberg D., & Henik A . ( 2011). Think the thought, walk the walk – Social priming reduces the Stroop effect. Cognition, 118(2), 193-200.
[17]	Gratton G., Coles M. G. H., & Donchin E . ( 1992). Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480-506.
[18]	Hommel B., Proctor R. W., & Vu K-P . ( 2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68(1), 1-17.
[19]	Iani C., Stella G., & Rubichi S . ( 2014). Response inhibition and adaptations to response conflict in 6- to 8-year-old children: Evidence from the Simon effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(4), 1234-1241.
[20]	Jiménez, L., & Méndez , A. ( 2013). It is not what you expect: dissociating conflict adaptation from expectancies in a stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(1), 271-284.
[21]	Kerns, J. G . ( 2006). Anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex activity in an fMRI study of trial-to-trial adjustments on the simon task. Neuroimage, 33(1), 399-405.
[22]	Kray J., Karbach J., & Blaye A . ( 2012). The influence of stimulus-set size on developmental changes in cognitive control and conflict adaptation. Acta Psychologica, 140(2), 119-128.
[23]	Lamers, M. J. M., & Roelofs , A. ( 2011). Attentional control adjustments in Eriksen and Stroop task performance can be independent of response conflict. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(6), 1056-1081.
[24]	Larson M. J., Clawson A., Clayson P. E., & South M . ( 2012). Cognitive control and conflict adaptation similarities in children and adults. Developmental Neuropsychology 37(4), 343-357.
[25]	Larson M. J., Kaufman D. A. S., & Perlstein W. M . ( 2009). Neural time course of conflict adaptation effects on the stroop task. Neuropsychologia, 47(3), 663-670.
[26]	Luna B., Garver K. E., Urban T. A., Lazar N. A., & Sweeney J. A . ( 2004). Maturation of cognitive processes from late childhood to adulthood. Child Development, 75(5), 1357-1372.
[27]	Luna B, & Sweeney J.A . ( 2004). The emergence of collaborative brain function: fMRI studies of the development of response inhibition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1021(1), 296-309.
[28]	Lustig C., Hasher L., & Tonev S. T . ( 2006). Distraction as a determinant of processing speed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(4), 619-625.
[29]	MacLeod C.M . ( 1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163-203.
[30]	Mayr U., Awh E., & Laurey P . ( 2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450-452.
[31]	Miyake A., Friedman N. P., Emerson M. J., Witzki A. H., Howerter A., & Wager T. D . ( 2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49-100.
[32]	Nieuwenhuis S., Stins J. F., Posthuma D., Polderman T. J. C., Boomsma D. I., & de Geus E. J. ., ( 2006). Accounting for sequential trial effects in the flanker task: Conflict adaptation or associative priming? Memory & Cognition, 34(6), 1260-1272.
[33]	Rueda M. R., Fan J., McCandliss B. D., Halparin J. D., Gruber D. B., Lercari L. P., & Posner M. I . ( 2004). Development of attentional networks in childhood. Neuropsychologia, 42(8), 1029-1040.
[34]	Stins J. F., Polderman J. C. T., Boomsma D. I., & de Geus E. J. C. ., ( 2007). Conditional accuracy in response interference tasks: evidence from the Eriksen flanker task and the spatial conflict task. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 409-417.
[35]	Titz C., & Karbach J. , ( 2014). Working memory and executive functions: Effects of training on academic achievement. Psychological Research, 78(6), 852-868.
[36]	Waxer M., & Morton J.B. . ( 2011). The development of future-oriented control: An electrophysiological investigation. NeuroImage, 56(3), 1648-1654.
[37]	Wilk H. A., Ezekiel F., & Morton J. B . ( 2012). Brain regions associated with moment-to-moment adjustments in control and stable task-set maintenance. NeuroImage, 59(2), 1960-1967.
[38]	Wilk H.A., & Morton J.B . ( 2012). Developmental changes in patterns of brain activity associated with moment-to- moment adjustments in control. NeuroImage, 63(1), 475-484.
[39]	Zhao X., Chen L., & Maes J. H. R . ( 2018). Training and transfer effects of response inhibition training in children and adults. Developmental Science, 21, e12511.
[40]	Zhao X., & Jia L. , ( 2018). Training and transfer effects of interference control training in children and young adults. Psychological Research, in press.

任务和因变量	因素	F	p	η_p2
任务1 反应时(ms)	年龄组	35.28	<0.001^***	0.35
	前一试次一致性	0.07	0.79	0.00
	当前试次一致性	64.05	<0.001^***	0.50
	前一试次×当前试次	103.21	<0.001^***	0.61
	年龄组×前一试次	0.02	89	0.00
	年龄组×当前试次	0.10	0.75	0.00
	年龄组×前一试次×当前试次	3.02	0.09	0.04
任务1 正确率	年龄组	34.44	<0.001^***	0.35
	前一试次一致性	26.06	<0.001^***	0.29
	当前试次一致性	26.20	<0.001^***	0.29
	前一试次×当前试次	50.37	<0.001^***	0.44
	年龄组×前一试次	5.24	0.03^*	0.08
	年龄组×当前试次	0.50	0.48	0.01
	年龄组×前一试次×当前试次	0.09	0.77	0.00
任务2 反应时(ms)	年龄组	25.71	<0.001^***	0.29
	任务转换(TT)	22.04	<0.001^***	0.26
	前一试次一致性	15.17	<0.001^***	0.19
	当前试次一致性	189.39	<0.001^***	0.75
	年龄组×TT	0.46	0.50	0.01
	年龄组×前一试次	6.51	0.01^*	0.09
	年龄组×当前试次	1.67	0.20	0.03
	TT×前一试次	6.50	0.01^*	0.09
	TT×当前试次	64.66	<0.001^***	0.50
	前一试次×当前试次	25.58	<0.001^***	0.29
	年龄组×TT×前一试次	0.02	0.89	0.00
	年龄组×TT×当前试次	9.12	0.004^**	0.13
	年龄组×前一试次×当前试次	0.01	0.91	0.00
	TT×前一试次×当前试次	1.38	0.25	0.02
	年龄组×TT×前一试次×当前试次	2.11	0.15	0.03
任务2 正确率	年龄组	50.14	<0.001+	0.44
	任务转换(TT)	77.27	<0.001^***	0.55
	前一试次一致性	0.03	0.87	0.00
	当前试次一致性	60.54	<0.001^***	0.49
	TT×前一试次	0.77	0.38	0.01
	TT×当前试次	0.18	0.68	0.00
	TT×前一试次×当前试次	0.28	0.60	0.00
	前一试次×当前试次	13.44	0.001^**	0.18
	年龄组×前一试次	0.01	0.92	0.00
	年龄组×当前试次	13.89	<0.001^***	0.18
	年龄组×TT	18.62	<0.001^***	0.23
	年龄组×TT×前一试次	1.26	0.27	0.02
	年龄组×TT×当前试次	0.18	0.68	0.00
	年龄组×前一试次×当前试次	0.99	0.32	0.02
	年龄组×TT×前一试次×当前试次	0.21	0.65	0.00

任务和因变量	因素	F	p	η_p2
任务1 反应时(ms)	年龄组	35.28	<0.001^***	0.35
	前一试次一致性	0.07	0.79	0.00
	当前试次一致性	64.05	<0.001^***	0.50
	前一试次×当前试次	103.21	<0.001^***	0.61
	年龄组×前一试次	0.02	89	0.00
	年龄组×当前试次	0.10	0.75	0.00
	年龄组×前一试次×当前试次	3.02	0.09	0.04
任务1 正确率	年龄组	34.44	<0.001^***	0.35
	前一试次一致性	26.06	<0.001^***	0.29
	当前试次一致性	26.20	<0.001^***	0.29
	前一试次×当前试次	50.37	<0.001^***	0.44
	年龄组×前一试次	5.24	0.03^*	0.08
	年龄组×当前试次	0.50	0.48	0.01
	年龄组×前一试次×当前试次	0.09	0.77	0.00
任务2 反应时(ms)	年龄组	25.71	<0.001^***	0.29
	任务转换(TT)	22.04	<0.001^***	0.26
	前一试次一致性	15.17	<0.001^***	0.19
	当前试次一致性	189.39	<0.001^***	0.75
	年龄组×TT	0.46	0.50	0.01
	年龄组×前一试次	6.51	0.01^*	0.09
	年龄组×当前试次	1.67	0.20	0.03
	TT×前一试次	6.50	0.01^*	0.09
	TT×当前试次	64.66	<0.001^***	0.50
	前一试次×当前试次	25.58	<0.001^***	0.29
	年龄组×TT×前一试次	0.02	0.89	0.00
	年龄组×TT×当前试次	9.12	0.004^**	0.13
	年龄组×前一试次×当前试次	0.01	0.91	0.00
	TT×前一试次×当前试次	1.38	0.25	0.02
	年龄组×TT×前一试次×当前试次	2.11	0.15	0.03
任务2 正确率	年龄组	50.14	<0.001+	0.44
	任务转换(TT)	77.27	<0.001^***	0.55
	前一试次一致性	0.03	0.87	0.00
	当前试次一致性	60.54	<0.001^***	0.49
	TT×前一试次	0.77	0.38	0.01
	TT×当前试次	0.18	0.68	0.00
	TT×前一试次×当前试次	0.28	0.60	0.00
	前一试次×当前试次	13.44	0.001^**	0.18
	年龄组×前一试次	0.01	0.92	0.00
	年龄组×当前试次	13.89	<0.001^***	0.18
	年龄组×TT	18.62	<0.001^***	0.23
	年龄组×TT×前一试次	1.26	0.27	0.02
	年龄组×TT×当前试次	0.18	0.68	0.00
	年龄组×前一试次×当前试次	0.99	0.32	0.02
	年龄组×TT×前一试次×当前试次	0.21	0.65	0.00